Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEINO v. FINLAND

  Art. 8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  Consequently, "home" is to be construed as including also the registered office of a company run by a private individual, as well as a legal person's registered office, branches and other business premises (see, inter alia, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 31, 28 April 2005; Chappell v. the United Kingdom, 30 March 1989, §§ 26 and 51, Series A no. 152-A2-A; and Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-31, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 151., ECHR 2010-).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  In a sphere covered by written law, the "law" is the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  Turning to the present case, the Court reiterates that it has already found in the Sallinen and Others case (cited above, § 89), that there was no independent or judicial supervision when granting the search warrant as the decision to authorise the order was taken by the police themselves (see also, mutatis mutandis, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 176-A; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 90, Series A no. 61; and Sorvisto v. Finland, cited above, § 117).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 151., ECHR 2010-).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  Turning to the present case, the Court reiterates that it has already found in the Sallinen and Others case (cited above, § 89), that there was no independent or judicial supervision when granting the search warrant as the decision to authorise the order was taken by the police themselves (see also, mutatis mutandis, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 176-A; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 90, Series A no. 61; and Sorvisto v. Finland, cited above, § 117).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 151., ECHR 2010-).
• EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 73957/01

  VARGA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  The applicant's right to respect for her home was thus violated by the fact that there was no prior judicial warrant and no possibility to obtain an effective judicial review a posteriori of either the decision to order the search or the manner in which it was conducted (see Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; and Isıldak v. Turkey, no. 12863/02, § 52, 30 September 2008).
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 12863/02

  ISILDAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09

  The applicant's right to respect for her home was thus violated by the fact that there was no prior judicial warrant and no possibility to obtain an effective judicial review a posteriori of either the decision to order the search or the manner in which it was conducted (see Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; and Isıldak v. Turkey, no. 12863/02, § 52, 30 September 2008).

• EuGH, 18.06.2015 - C-583/13

  Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - …

  Sie rügt weiter, das Gericht habe sich in Rn. 66 des angefochtenen Urteils rechtsfehlerhaft auf die Urteile Harju/Finnland (vom 15. Februar 2011, Nr. 56716/09,) und Heino/Finnland (vom 15. Februar 2011, Nr. 56720/09) des EGMR berufen, soweit es dort festgestellt habe, aus diesen Urteilen lasse sich der allgemeine Grundsatz ableiten, dass das Fehlen einer vorherigen richterlichen Genehmigung durch eine umfassende Kontrolle im Anschluss an die Nachprüfung kompensiert werden könne.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.06.2014 - Gutachten 2/13

  Abschluss internationaler Übereinkünfte durch die Union - Beitritt der Union zur …

  80 - Vgl. beispielsweise EGMR, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2007, Smirnov/Russland (…Beschwerde-Nr. 71362/01, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2007-VII, Rn. 45), sowie Urteile vom 15. Februar 2011, Harju/Finnland (…Beschwerde-Nr. 56716/09, Rn. 40 und 44) und Heino/Finnland (Beschwerde-Nr. 56720/09, Rn. 45).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 8. Having regard to this conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary to review compliance with the other requirements of Article 8 § 2 in this case (see, for example, Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, and Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 49, 15 February 2011).

 
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'en vertu de sa jurisprudence constante les mots « prévue par la loi'impliquent qu'une ingérence aux droits garantis par l'article 8 doit reposer sur une base légale interne, que la législation en question doit être suffisamment accessible et prévisible et que celle-ci doit être compatible avec le principe de la prééminence du droit (voir parmi beaucoup d'autres Rotaru c. Roumanie [GC], no 28341/95, § 52, CEDH 2000-V ; Liberty et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 58243/00, § 59, 1er juillet 2008 ; Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, § 36, 15 février 2011.
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 32600/12

  TRABAJO RUEDA c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner des lois permettant aux autorités d'enquête de réaliser des perquisitions sans autorisation préalable en cas d'urgence et a conclu à la violation de la Convention lorsque le contrôle judiciaire postérieur n'était pas effectif (Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 45, 7 juin 2007, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, §§ 45-48, 15 février 2011, Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie, no 34529/10, §§ 221-227, CEDH 2013 (extraits), Prezhdarovi c. Bulgarie, no 8429/05, §§ 46-52, 30 septembre 2014, Slavov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 58500/10, §§ 145-151, 10 novembre 2015).

  Dans la présente affaire, il n'y avait aucun soupçon ni enquête préliminaire ou absence de poursuites pénales consécutives susceptibles de soulever des problèmes de nécessité ou d'arbitraire, ou en rapport avec une grande échelle de garanties procédurales (voir, par exemple, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, 15 février 2011, ou Harju c. Finlande, no 56716/09, 15 février 2011).

• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 4605/05

  PETROVA v. LATVIA

  Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 8. Having regard to this conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary to review compliance with the other requirements of Article 8 § 2 in this case (see, for example, Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 76, Reports 1998-II, and Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 49, 15 February 2011).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.04.2014 - C-37/13

  Nexans und Nexans France / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Verordnung …

  42 - EGMR, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2007, Smirnov/Russland (…Beschwerde-Nr. 71362/01, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2007-VII, Rn. 45), sowie Urteile vom 15. Februar 2011, Harju/Finnland (…Beschwerde-Nr. 56716/09, Rn. 40 und 44) und Heino/Finnland (Beschwerde-Nr. 56720/09, Rn. 45).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 97/11

  DELTA PEKÁRNY A.S. c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Quant à la nécessité de l'ingérence dans une société démocratique, la société requérante relève que non seulement le droit tchèque ne soumet pas une inspection au sens de la loi no 143/2001 à une autorisation judiciaire préalable mais que ce défaut n'est pas non plus compensé par un examen effectif a posteriori des motifs censés justifier l'inspection et de la manière dont celle-ci a été menée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Heino c. Finlande, no 56720/09, § 45, 15 février 2011).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.02.2015 - C-583/13

  Deutsche Bahn u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Art. 20 Abs. 4 und Art. 28 der …

  17 - Urteil Heino/Finnland, Nr. 56720/09, ECHR 2011.
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND

  In a number of cases involving complaints under Article 8, the Court has found that proper legal safeguards against arbitrariness would necessitate the provision of judicial or other independent scrutiny of relevant measures affecting individuals (see Rotaru v. Romania, § 59; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, § 40, both cited above; Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 45, 15 February 2011; X v. Finland, cited above, §§ 220-21; and Polyakova and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 116-17).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 14704/12

  KIRDÖK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 58500/10

  SLAVOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 24630/10

  LINDSTRÖM AND MÄSSELI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 39651/11

  POPOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55388/10

  STOYANOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 34957/12

  GOVEDARSKI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 51693/13

  MODESTOU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 34734/13

  MAZOWIECKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26764/12

  ROTARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 52507/09

  BOSTAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.09.2018 - 57278/11

  BRAZZI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 43545/13

  VASILICA MOCANU v. ROMANIA